PHYSICS: The Vortex - Stretch the Mind - A little speculation never hurts.

Vortices are seen in nature, ranging from the bath plug drain to a hurricane and many places in between. They are a concentrator of energy, collecting it from across a wide area and bringing it into a very energetic point. A tornado is a graphic example of the ability of a vortex to collect energy over a large area or volume and bring it to a devastatingly powerful focus.

The vortex has a special geometry which could be described as a non-linear analogue of an implosion. It collects and concentrates energy. Our industrial science has, to date, relied upon the geometry of explosions to power our energy needs. This, in physics terms, means that we use the conversion of a potential energy to an energy of motion to power our machinery. An internal combustion engine converting the chemical energy of fuel to motion is an obvious example.

A vortex is also the geometry of a spiral galaxy, which is in fact a flow of mass from a wide volume to a small one. It is a flow of mass or a current of mass, which is concentrated by the vortex geometry to a point of higher energy and lower motion at the centre of the galaxy. So a galaxy is a gravitational vortex. The mass current may be the cause of the gravity field just as an electric current is the cause of the electric field.

Einstein's 'warp in space-time' as a description of gravity amounts to the same thing. It causes mass energy to spiral in toward another larger mass energy. A vortex (non linear implosion) returns motion to the state of energy, whereas an explosion converts energy to a state of motion. The two states of the same energy are interdependent and mathematically reciprocal. A simple example is the relationship between the potential and kinetic energy of a mass within a gravity field.

A vortex is perhaps the only geometry where every point in it is accelerating away from every other point, if the angular velocity and angular acceleration of matter are included in the consideration.

That is the same information obtained from the measure of red shift data of distant galaxies, which have an increasing velocity. When viewed with a linear mindset it is impossible to comprehend. It is possible that the geometry of the universe may be a vortex, just like a galaxy, but too big to be seen.

The vortex geometry could explain how the universe might return to the singularity (point energy) from whence the last 'big bang' started about 14 billion years ago. How long that cycle takes is an interesting, if largely irrelevant question.

A Quantum Quandary

The Planck Constant has long been used in many calculations in quantum physics for the determination of values such as for energy, wavelength, momentum, and frequency. It is among other constants such as mass, length, time, electric charge determined by Max Planck as the smallest value (quantum) that these measures can be. ( For example the formula for the quantum of time is stated as Planck Time equals the square root of the reduced Planck Constant times the Gravitation Constant divided by the Speed of Light raised to the fifth power and equals 5.391 x 10^-44 seconds. This is the 'quantum of time'.) Planck's work in the early 20^th century has been accepted as correct by mainstream science for many decades.

The commonly used reduced Planck Constant is stated as (approximately) 1.054 x 10^-34 Joule.sec. It is described as the 'quantum of action' or the smallest unit which can cause a change in motion. When the SI (mks) unit Joule.sec is converted to S-T(space-time) units it becomes energy t/s times time t and equals t²/s. This is the S-T unit which describes Inertia. and its reciprocal, s/t², describes Acceleration. Acceleration is therefore at its maximum when its reciprocal, inertia, is at the minimum possible to produce an action, which is what a 'quantum' means. The implication is that 1/ 1.054x10^-34 is the maximum possible acceleration and that equals 9.487 x 10³³ N/kg (or m/sec²). The mathematics which point to the existence of unity between inertia and acceleration (refer previous post on Mass, Gravity and Unity) also imply, from the quantum values which are the smallest indivisible quantities, that there are also maximum values whose limits are imposed by their reciprocal minimums.

Quantum theory currently does not allow a value for inertia less than the Planck constant, which based on the foregoing, also defines a maximum acceleration.

The theoretical maximum acceleration provides a theoretical limit to the rate of expansion of the universe. This view may possibly be challenged by science in the future, but for now may be mandated by Planck's work.

As an example of potential problems with Planck measurement, current physics has a problem with inconsistent values for the radius of a proton. The two available methods of measurement give a significantly different result. Both results do, however, agree that the radius of a proton is smaller than the Planck length, which is supposed to be the quantum of distance, yet a particle appears to have a smaller size than the quantum of distance. It is not clear what, if anything is a fundamental, and begs the question 'Why is a proton so small?'